Interdomain Routing Reading: Sections K&R 4.6.3 EE122: Intro to Communication Networks Fall 2007 (WF 4:00-5:30 in Cory 277) Guest Lecture by Brighten Godfrey Instructor: Vern Paxson TAs: Lisa Fowler, Daniel Killebrew & Jorge Ortiz http://inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~ee122/ Materials with thanks to Scott Shenker, Jennifer Rexford, Ion Stoica and colleagues at Princeton and UC Berkeley 1 Outline Why does BGP exist? What is interdomain routing and why do we need it? Why does BGP look the way it does? How does BGP work? Boring details Yuck pay more attention to the why than the how 2
Routing Provides paths between networks Previous lecture presented two routing designs link-state distance vector Previous lecture assumed single domain all routers have same routing metric (shortest path) no privacy issues, no policy issues 3 Internet is more complicated... Internet not just unstructured collection of networks Internet is comprised of a set of autonomous systems (ASes) independently run networks, some are commercial ISPs currently around 20,000 ASes ASes are sometimes called domains hence interdomain routing 4
Internet: a large number of ASes Large ISP Large ISP Stub Dial-Up ISP Stub Small ISP Stub Access Network 5 This adds another level in hierarchy Three levels in logical routing hierarchy networks: reaches individual hosts intradomain: routes between networks interdomain: routes between ASes Need a protocol to route between domains BGP is current standard BGP unifies network organizations 6
Who speaks BGP? AS2 AS1 BGP R2 R3 R1 R border router internal router! Two types of routers! Border router (Edge), Internal router (Core) 7 Purpose of BGP you can reach net A via me AS2 AS1 traffic to A R1 BGP R2 A R3 table at R1: dest next hop A R2 R border router internal router Share connectivity information across ASes 8
I-BGP and E-BGP I-BGP IGP: Intradomain routing Example: OSPF R2 IGP R3 AS1 E-BGP AS2 A announce B R1 R border router internal router R4 AS3 B R5 9 In more detail 6 2 3 4 9 2 3 1 Border router Internal router 1. Provide internal reachability (IGP) 2. Learn routes to external destinations (ebgp) 3. Distribute externally learned routes internally (ibgp) 4. Select closest egress (IGP) 10
Rest of lecture... Motivate why BGP is the way it is Discuss some problems with interdomain routing Discuss (briefly!) what a new BGP might look like Explain some of BGP s details not fundamental, just series of specific design decisions 11 Why BGP Is the Way It Is 12
1. ASes are autonomous Want to choose their own internal routing protocol different algorithms and metrics Want freedom to route based on policy my traffic can t be carried over my competitor s network I don t want to carry transit traffic through my network not expressible as Internet-wide shortest path! Want to keep their connections and policies private would reveal business relationships, network structure 13 2. ASes have business relationships Three kinds of relationships between ASes AS A can be AS B s customer AS A can be AS B s provider AS A can be AS B s peer Business implications customer pays provider peers don t pay each other Policy implications When sending traffic, I prefer to route through customers over peers, and peers over providers I don t carry traffic from one provider to another provider 14
AS-level topology Destinations are IP prefixes (e.g., 12.0.0.0/8) Nodes are Autonomous Systems (ASes) " internals are hidden Links are connections & business relationships 3 4 5 2 7 6 1 Client Web server 15 What routing algorithm can we use? Key issues are policy and privacy Can t use shortest path domains don t have any shared metric policy choices might not be shortest path Can t use link state would have to flood policy preferences and topology would violate privacy 16
What about distance vector? Does not reveal any connectivity information But is designed to compute shortest paths Extend distance vector to allow policy choices? 17 Path-Vector Routing Extension of distance-vector routing Support flexible routing policies Faster loop detection (no count-to-infinity) Key idea: advertise the entire path Distance vector: send distance metric per dest d Path vector: send the entire path for each dest d 3 d: path (2,1) d: path (1) 2 1 data traffic data traffic d 18
Faster Loop Detection Node can easily detect a loop Look for its own node identifier in the path E.g., node 1 sees itself in the path 3, 2, 1 Node can simply discard paths with loops E.g., node 1 simply discards the advertisement 3 d: path (2,1) d: path (1) 2 1 d: path (3,2,1) 19 Flexible Policies Each node can apply local policies Path selection: Which path to use? Path export: Which paths to advertise? Examples Node 2 may prefer the path 2, 3, 1 over 2, 1 Node 1 may not let node 3 hear the path 1, 2 2 3 1 20
Selection vs Export Selection policies determines which paths I want my traffic to take Export policies determines whose traffic I am willing to carry Notes: any traffic I carry will follow the same path my traffic takes, so there is a connection between the two from a protocol perspective, decisions can be arbitrary " can depend on entire path (advantage of PV approach) 21 Illustration Route export Route selection Customer Primary Competitor Backup Selection: controls traffic out of the network Export: controls traffic into the network 22
Examples of Standard Policies Transit network: Selection: prefer customer to peer to provider Export: " Let customers use any of your routes " Let anyone route through you to your customer " Block everything else Multihomed (nontransit) network: Export: Don t export routes for other domains Selection: pick primary over backup 23 Any Questions? 24
Issues with Path-Vector Policy Routing Reachability Security Performance Lack of isolation Policy oscillations 25 Reachability In normal routing, if graph is connected then reachability is assured With policy routing, this does not always hold Provider AS 1 AS 3 Provider AS 2 Customer 26
Security An AS can claim to serve a prefix that they actually don t have a route to (blackholing traffic) problem not specific to policy or path vector important because of AS autonomy Fixable: make ASes prove they have a path 27 Performance BGP designed for policy not performance Hot Potato routing common but suboptimal AS wants to hand off the packet as soon as possible Even BGP shortest paths are not shortest Fewest AS s!= Fewest number of routers 20% of paths inflated by at least 5 router hops Not clear this is a significant problem 28
Performance (example) AS path length can be misleading An AS may have many router-level hops BGP says that path 4 1 is better than path 3 2 1 AS 4 AS 3 AS 2 AS 1 29 Lack of Isolation: dynamics If there is a change in the path, the path must be re-advertised to every node upstream of the change 10 8 6 4 BGP updates per day (100,000s) Route Flap Damping supposed to help here, (but ends up causing more problems) 2 0 Date (Jan - Dec 2005) Fig. from [Huston & Armitage 2006] 30
Lack of isolation: routing table size Each BGP router must know path to every other IP prefix but router memory is expensive and thus constrained Number of prefixes growing more than linearly Subject of current research 180000 Number of prefixes in BGP table 100000 Jan!02 Jan!06 Fig. from [Huston & Armitage 2006] 31 Persistent Oscillations due to Policies Depends on the interactions of policies 1 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 3 3 2 0 3 0 We are back to where we started! 32
Policy Oscillations (cont!d) Policy autonomy vs network stability focus of much recent research Not an easy problem PSPACE-complete to decide whether given policies will eventually converge! [FP08] However, if policies follow normal business practices, stability is guaranteed 33 Redesigning BGP If we keep all the current constraints, not many alternative design options (at high-level) Which constraints might we lift? Are most policies really private? could use link-state for some of the routing Do ASes really need to see the entire path? could hide some of the path, reducing updates Can AS structure be integrated into addressing? 34
Any Questions? 35 Rest of lecture... BGP details Stay awake as long as you can... 36
Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Interdomain routing protocol for the Internet Prefix-based path-vector protocol Policy-based routing based on AS Paths Evolved during the past 15 years 1989 : BGP-1 [RFC 1105] Replacement for EGP (1984, RFC 904) 1990 : BGP-2 [RFC 1163] 1991 : BGP-3 [RFC 1267] 1995 : BGP-4 [RFC 1771] Support for Classless Interdomain Routing (CIDR) 37 BGP Routing Table ner-routes>show ip bgp BGP table version is 6128791, local router ID is 4.2.34.165 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP,? - incomplete Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path * i3.0.0.0 4.0.6.142 1000 50 0 701 80 i * i4.0.0.0 4.24.1.35 0 100 0 i * i12.3.21.0/23 192.205.32.153 0 50 0 7018 4264 6468? * e128.32.0.0/16 192.205.32.153 0 50 0 7018 4264 6468 25 e 38
BGP Operations Establish session on TCP port 179 AS1 Exchange all active routes BGP session AS2 Exchange incremental updates While connection is ALIVE exchange route UPDATE messages 39 Incremental Protocol A node learns multiple paths to destination Stores all of the routes in a routing table Applies policy to select a single active route and may advertise the route to its neighbors Incremental updates Announcement " Upon selecting a new active route, add node id to path " and (optionally) advertise to each neighbor Withdrawal " If the active route is no longer available " send a withdrawal message to the neighbors 40
BGP Route Processing Open ended programming. Constrained only by vendor configuration language Receive BGP Updates Apply Policy = filter routes & tweak attributes Based on Attribute Values Best Routes Apply Policy = filter routes & tweak attributes Transmit BGP Updates Apply Import Policies Best Route Selection Best Route Table Apply Export Policies Install forwarding Entries for best Routes. IP Forwarding Table 41 Selecting the best route Attributes of routes set/modified according to operator instructions Routes compared based on attributes using (mostly) standardized rules 1. Highest local preference (all equal by default 2. Shortest AS path length so default = shortest paths) 3. Lowest origin type (IGP < EGP < incomplete) 4. Lowest MED 5. ebgp- over ibgp-learned 6. Lowest IGP cost 7. Lowest next-hop router ID 42
Attributes Destination prefix (e.g,. 128.112.0.0/16) Routes have attributes, including AS path (e.g., 7018 88 ) Next-hop IP address (e.g., 12.127.0.121) AS 88 Princeton 192.0.2.1 AS 7018 AT&T 12.127.0.121 AS 12654 RIPE NCC RIS project 128.112.0.0/16 AS path = 88 Next Hop = 192.0.2.1 128.112.0.0/16 AS path = 7018 88 Next Hop = 12.127.0.121 43 ASPATH Attribute 128.112.0.0/16 AS Path = 1755 1239 7018 88 AS 1129 Global Access 128.112.0.0/16 AS Path = 1239 7018 88 AS 1239 Sprint AS 1755 Ebone 128.112.0.0/16 AS Path = 7018 88 128.112.0.0/16 AS Path = 1129 1755 1239 7018 88 AS 12654 RIPE NCC RIS project 128.112.0.0/16 AS Path = 88 AS 88 Princeton 128.112.0.0/16 Prefix Originated AS7018 AT&T 128.112.0.0/16 AS Path = 7018 88 128.112.0.0/16 AS Path = 3549 7018 88 AS 3549 Global Crossing 44
Local Preference attribute Policy choice between different AS paths AS1 140.20.1.0/24 The higher the value the more preferred AS2 AS4 AS3 Carried by IBGP, local to the AS. BGP table at AS4: Destination AS Path Local Pref 140.20.1.0/24 AS3 AS1 300 140.20.1.0/24 AS2 AS1 100 45 Internal BGP and Local Preference Example Both routers prefer the path through AS 100 on the left even though the right router learns an external path AS 200 AS 100 AS 300 Local Pref = 100 Local Pref = 90 I-BGP AS 256 46
Origin attribute Who originated the announcement? Where was a prefix injected into BGP? IGP, BGP or Incomplete (often used for static routes) 47 Multi-Exit Discriminator (MED) attr. When ASes interconnected via 2 or more links AS1 AS announcing prefix sets MED (AS2 in picture) Link B MED=50 MED=10 Link A AS receiving prefix uses MED to select link AS2 A way to specify how close a prefix is to the link it is announced on AS4 AS3 48
IGP cost attribute Used in BGP for hot-potato routing Each router selects the closest egress point based on the path cost in intradomain protocol Somewhat in conflict with MED A 4 F 3 5 dst D 3 8 C 9 E 8 10 B 4 G hot potato 49 Lowest Router ID Last step in route selection decision process Arbitrary tiebreaking But we do sometimes reach this step, so how ties are broken matters 50
Joining BGP and IGP Information Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Announces reachability to external destinations Maps a destination prefix to an egress point " 128.112.0.0/16 reached via 192.0.2.1 Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Used to compute paths within the AS Maps an egress point to an outgoing link " 192.0.2.1 reached via 10.1.1.1 10.1.1.1 192.0.2.1 51 Some Routers Don!t Need BGP Customer that connects to a single upstream ISP The ISP can introduce the prefixes into BGP and the customer can simply default-route to the ISP Qwest Nail up routes 130.132.0.0/16 pointing to Yale Nail up default routes 0.0.0.0/0 pointing to Qwest Yale University 130.132.0.0/16 52
Summary BGP is essential to the Internet ties different organizations together Poses fundamental challenges... leads to use of path vector approach...and myriad details 53